Cargando…
Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition
BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter‐related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in home parenteral nutrition patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline. METHODS: This multicentre double‐blinded tr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29978597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14904 |
_version_ | 1783348663497523200 |
---|---|
author | Wouters, Y. Theilla, M. Singer, P. Tribler, S. Jeppesen, P. B. Pironi, L. Vinter‐Jensen, L. Rasmussen, H. H. Rahman, F. Wanten, G. J. A. |
author_facet | Wouters, Y. Theilla, M. Singer, P. Tribler, S. Jeppesen, P. B. Pironi, L. Vinter‐Jensen, L. Rasmussen, H. H. Rahman, F. Wanten, G. J. A. |
author_sort | Wouters, Y. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter‐related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in home parenteral nutrition patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline. METHODS: This multicentre double‐blinded trial randomly assigned home parenteral nutrition patients to use either 2% taurolidine or 0.9% saline for 1 year. Patients were stratified in a new catheter group and a pre‐existing catheter group. Primary outcome was the rate of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days in the new catheter group and pre‐existing catheter group, separately. RESULTS: We randomised 105 patients, of which 102 were analysed as modified intention‐to‐treat population. In the new catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.29 and 1.49 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04‐0.71; P = 0.009). In the pre‐existing catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.39 and 1.32 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.03‐1.82; P = 0.25). Excluding one outlier patient in the taurolidine arm, mean costs per patient were $1865 for taurolidine and $4454 for saline (P = 0.03). Drug‐related adverse events were rare and generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: In the new catheter group, taurolidine showed a clear decrease in CRBSI rate. In the pre‐existing catheter group, no superiority of taurolidine could be demonstrated, most likely due to underpowering. Overall, taurolidine reduced the risk for CRBSIs by more than four times. Given its favourable safety and cost profile, taurolidine locking should be considered as an additional strategy to prevent CRBSIs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01826526. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6099431 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60994312018-08-24 Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition Wouters, Y. Theilla, M. Singer, P. Tribler, S. Jeppesen, P. B. Pironi, L. Vinter‐Jensen, L. Rasmussen, H. H. Rahman, F. Wanten, G. J. A. Aliment Pharmacol Ther Randomised Clinical Trial BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter‐related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in home parenteral nutrition patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline. METHODS: This multicentre double‐blinded trial randomly assigned home parenteral nutrition patients to use either 2% taurolidine or 0.9% saline for 1 year. Patients were stratified in a new catheter group and a pre‐existing catheter group. Primary outcome was the rate of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days in the new catheter group and pre‐existing catheter group, separately. RESULTS: We randomised 105 patients, of which 102 were analysed as modified intention‐to‐treat population. In the new catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.29 and 1.49 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04‐0.71; P = 0.009). In the pre‐existing catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.39 and 1.32 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.03‐1.82; P = 0.25). Excluding one outlier patient in the taurolidine arm, mean costs per patient were $1865 for taurolidine and $4454 for saline (P = 0.03). Drug‐related adverse events were rare and generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: In the new catheter group, taurolidine showed a clear decrease in CRBSI rate. In the pre‐existing catheter group, no superiority of taurolidine could be demonstrated, most likely due to underpowering. Overall, taurolidine reduced the risk for CRBSIs by more than four times. Given its favourable safety and cost profile, taurolidine locking should be considered as an additional strategy to prevent CRBSIs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01826526. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-07-05 2018-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6099431/ /pubmed/29978597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14904 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Randomised Clinical Trial Wouters, Y. Theilla, M. Singer, P. Tribler, S. Jeppesen, P. B. Pironi, L. Vinter‐Jensen, L. Rasmussen, H. H. Rahman, F. Wanten, G. J. A. Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition |
title | Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition |
title_full | Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition |
title_fullStr | Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition |
title_full_unstemmed | Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition |
title_short | Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition |
title_sort | randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition |
topic | Randomised Clinical Trial |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29978597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14904 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT woutersy randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT theillam randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT singerp randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT triblers randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT jeppesenpb randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT pironil randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT vinterjensenl randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT rasmussenhh randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT rahmanf randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition AT wantengja randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition |